Related Services

Blog

Alston & Bird has a nationwide environmental litigation practice. Our team, which includes litigators in Atlanta, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., has decades of experience at both the trial and appellate levels. Our experience runs the gamut from complex, multiparty Superfund litigation to citizen suits brought under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and RCRA. We also routinely defend claims brought under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our lawyers defend clients against toxic tort claims as well, including claims for personal injury and property damage from alleged exposure to chemicals and other toxins.

Alston & Bird's environmental litigators also have helped shape key principles of environmental law through over 25 published federal and state environmental cases. This extends to several precedent-setting cases under various federal statutes, including Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., holding that a claim for cost recovery is not available under RCRA; Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation, holding that NCP compliance is a prima facie element of a CERCLA cost recovery claim; Wilshire Westwood v. ARCO, holding that a CERCLA petroleum exclusion covers crude oil, refined petroleum products and additives indigenous to the refining process; and Solutia v. McWane, holding that a party with standing to bring a CERCLA contribution claim is barred from also asserting a cost recovery claim.

Our extensive experience with enforcement actions, compliance counseling, and citizen suits provides us the perspective to be effective in all types of complex environmental litigation. We also have had significant success resolving disputes before they become litigation. When prevention proves impossible, however, we have a proven track record of aggressive representation, positioning our clients for the most favorable settlement, or victory at trial.

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business describes us as “a phenomenal group at the top of the industry,” in addition to selecting eight of our attorneys as leaders in the field of environmental law.

One of our partners is a former chair of the ABA Section of Environment, Energy & Resources, while another is the immediate past director of California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. Our team also includes the former chair of the ABA Environmental Enforcement & Crimes Committee, as well the current co-chair of the ABA Environmental Litigation Committee. We also have several former senior enforcement officials from the Environmental Enforcement Section and Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as from the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Office of General Counsel for California EPA.

Bringing Value to Our Clients

Our breadth and depth of experience across a full range of environmental compliance, enforcement and litigation issues is matched by few other national law firms. We also have successfully assisted numerous clients with self audits, internal investigations, and where appropriate, voluntary self-disclosures to resolve compliance issues prior to the initiation of any agency enforcement action.

Defended over 1,000 personal injury claims in Birmingham, Alabama, and elsewhere related to alleged exposure to various isocyanate products in the coal mining industry.

Defended a major defense contractor against 270 toxic tort claims based on historical rocket-testing and present-day groundwater contamination. Obtained a successful resolution and de minimis settlement after demonstration of fate and transport, as well as statute of limitation issues.

Successfully resolved 900 plaintiff air contamination toxic tort cases for an oil refinery after obtaining dismissals of all but 78 plaintiffs.

Defeated putative class action involving the claims of 13,000 residents seeking damages for alleged lead and other metals exposures from former foundry operations.

Obtained a criminal declination for a corporate parent and its subsidiaries in connection with Clean Water Act violations at a client’s waste water treatment facility. Led the initial internal investigation into whistleblower allegations of illegal facility discharges and assisted the client with reporting suspected violations under EPA’s Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. The U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and U.S. EPA Criminal Investigative Division filed charges against the former facility manager and supervisor, but brought no charges against the client parent or subsidiaries.

On May 10, 2016, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Santa Margarita Water District and San Bernardino County in two cases challenging the Cadiz water project, a public-private partnership that seeks to pump and beneficially use groundwater from an aquifer in the Mojave Desert located in San Bernardino County.

Ed Casey presented to members of the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Institute of Architects on the legal questions surrounding two proposed ballot initiatives: the “Neighborhood Integrity Initiative” and “Build Better L.A.”

Ed Casey is profiled in a report focusing on his track record in defending CEQA lawsuits and the increasing hit on businesses from the growing abuse of CEQA. Mr. Casey was also featured in a 2012 article highlighting Alston & Bird’s successes in court defending projects against CEQA challenges.

Just days ago, the Supreme Court denied review in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA. By denying review, the Court let stand a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that undoubtedly will embolden the EPA to seize ever-more control over local land-use decisions across the country. And unfortunately, agriculture stands to bear much of the brunt of the agency’s aggressive regulation.

Courts are starting to coalesce around a ‘‘common sense approach’’ to allocating settlement proceeds in CERCLA cases, attorneys Doug Arnold, Sarah Babcock and Nicole DeMoss say. Noting the uncertainty that still exists in most jurisdictions surrounding private party settlements in litigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the authors offer advice to defendants in considering potential settlement terms.

For many years, the hazardous waste pharmaceutical disposal practices of hospitals, doctor’s offices and other health care providers have been regulated identically to other hazardous waste generators. These one-size-fits-all rules are cumbersome for health care providers and create unnecessary regulatory burdens for the health care industry, whose focus is patient care.

As the Roberts court enters its 11th term this month (over half the terms of the Rehnquist court), a comparative retrospective is in order. This article looks at some of the big decisions spanning the last 20-plus years, both good and bad. The verdict? On balance, property rights have fared better under the Roberts court — so far.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.

We provide the following guidance for environmental managers and in-house counsel faced with conducting an internal investigation into serious environmental violations. Following these tips will help a company minimize risks during the course of the investigation and in any follow-up interaction with the EPA or state agencies.